Bob Casey

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized to speak as in morning business.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a matter that is before the Senate, the Employee Free Choice Act. In summary, what this act will do is--and I have three brief points about the act itself--it will enable workers to form unions when a majority sign union authorization cards. Second, it will establish mediation and binding arbitration when the employer and workers cannot agree on a first contract. Third, it will strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate workers. We know today what we are facing in our economy. We have rising levels of productivity, thank goodness, but at the same time productivity has been up and our workers have been more productive than ever, our wages have not kept pace. Salaries and wages have not grown the way productivity has. We know that so many more of our working families have had to suffer that disparity, that gap between productivity and wages and benefits. I think a lot of Americans believe the freedom to choose a union is vital to restoring the American dream, especially for the most vulnerable Americans. Unfortunately, vulnerable Americans now include working families. Unions help American workers get their fair share, as you well know, Mr. President, in your State, as well as in my State of Pennsylvania. Union wages are almost 30 percent higher than wages in nonunion fields. Unions are also a cure for rising inequality because they raise wages for more low- and middle-income wage earners, more so than for higher wage workers. For example, if we talk about some lower wage occupations, cashiers, for example, earn 46 percent more than nonunion cashiers and those covered by unions, 46 percent more. Union food preparation workers earn nearly 50 percent more than nonunion food preparation workers. I will share a couple of demographic categories. Women, for example, who are represented by a union earn 31 percent more than women workers who do not have the benefit of a union. African-American union workers earn 36 percent more than their nonunion counterparts. Latino workers earn 46 percent more than those Latinos who are not represented by a union. Finally, union workers are almost twice as likely to have employer-sponsored health benefits and pensions at work--twice as likely--than their counterparts who do not have union protection. They are more than four times likely to have a secure and defined pension benefit plan than nonunion workers. Protecting the freedom to choose a union benefits all Americans, and I believe this in my bones, as we all do who support this act. Whether someone has a union I think raises and lifts all boats. In industries and occupations where many workplaces are unionized, nonunion employers will frequently meet union standards, lift their sights, so to speak, and otherwise improve compensation. A high school graduate in a nonunion workplace whose industry is 25 percent unionized gets paid 5 percent more than similar workers in less unionized industries. We know what this act can mean for workers and their families to raise their standard of living, in wages and benefits and other parts of their compensation, but also I believe this act is about America. We know the unions, the right to organize and selectively bargain, helped build the American middle class over decades, when those who said at the beginning of those fights this is not a good idea. What we will do by passing this legislation that is before the Senate is to move to a new chapter where more and more of our families can have the benefit of union protection so they can live in a country where their work, their labor, and the fruits of their labor is recognized. I ask all of my colleagues respectfully, as they consider this legislation, to think not only of what this will do for our unions and families who are covered by those unions but what it does for all America, for all our collective interests in a stronger economy. I ask their consideration of this bill. I know, Mr. President, you and so many others have been leading the fight on this effort, and we are grateful for that leadership, for our families, and for our country. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the bill, and think that it is a vital part of an agenda aimed at restoring a balance to our Nation's labor policies and alleviating the insecurity felt by so many American families. The bill, if passed, would enable workers to form unions when a majority sign union authorization cards, establish mediation and binding arbitration when the employer and workers cannot agree on a first contract, and strengthen penalties for companies that coerce or intimidate workers. These changes to our labor laws are quite frankly vital to the preservation of the American middle class, because unions, which were a driving force in the creation of that middle class, are also one of the best tools we have to protect it. We live in a remarkable time, when corporate profits are rising, largely because of the rising productivity of the American worker. At the same time, corporations in America are receiving unprecedented access to foreign markets because of our nation's trade policies. But while we are working to give corporations that access, we must work to ensure that workers have rights and protections, and opportunities in the new global economy that is emerging. After all, families are made up of workers, not corporations. Unfortunately, workers are being left behind in large part because we have stripped them of rights and protections and made it ever harder for them to organize in a union if they wish to do so. The effects of this are dramatic, and are changing the economic landscape of America. At a time when productivity has been rising and companies are making huge profits on the backs of their workers, workers' salaries are not increasing. Corporate profits are up by more than 83 percent since 2001. Yet the share of national income going to wages and salaries in 2006 was at its lowest level on record. The share of national income captured by corporate profits, in contrast, was at its highest level on record. Some 51.6 percent of total national income went to wages and salaries in 2006. Today, more than 40 percent of total income is going to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans--the biggest gap in more than 65 years. The share of pretax income in the Nation that goes to the top 1 percent of households increased from 17.8 percent in 2004 to 19.3 percent in 2005. Between 2004 and 2005, the average income of the top 1 percent of households increased by $102,000, after adjusting for inflation. The average income of the bottom 90 percent of households increased by $250. It is bad enough that wages aren't rising for the vast majority of Americans, but to make matters worse, the costs they face in their daily lives are rising, sometimes with life and death consequences. Six million Americans have lost their health insurance, and their retirement security is fading as well. It doesn't make sense that at a time when corporate balance sheets are so healthy, Americans are being forced to go without basic health care. In fact, we all know that that will have the effect of reducing our productivity, and profits, if we don't address it. That is why I support the Employee Free Choice Act. The freedom to choose a union is vital to restoring the American Dream, especially for the most vulnerable Americans. Union workers are far more likely to have health care benefits, and pensions that will actually provide for them in retirement. Unions help American workers get their fair share--union wages are almost 30 percent higher than nonunion wages. Unions are also a cure for rising inequality because they raise wages more for low- and middle-wage workers than for higher wage workers. Unions can also help the American worker weather the storm of globalization, and the displacement and insecurity that it has brought to some many families. Just this week, the OECD, which is known for its unapologetic promotion of free trade, released a report that highlighted the fact that countries should focus on improving labor regulations, for workers, not just companies, and social protection systems to help people adapt to changing job markets. The report also found that offshoring may have reduced the bargaining power of workers, especially low-skilled ones and that the prospect of offshoring may be increasing the vulnerability of jobs and wages in developed countries. That is an amazing finding from an organization devoted to promoting free trade. The OECD also found that in 18 of the 20 OECD countries where data exist, the gap between top earners and those at the bottom has risen since the early 1990s. The inequality in the United States was higher than all of those countries by a large margin, save one, Hungary. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which I represent here, was built on stable union jobs, and the industries that employed those union workers helped to build America as we know it today. Pennsylvania steel can be found in every corner of the country, but unfortunately most of the plants that made that steel are now closed, and most of the union jobs that were the engine of those plants are gone. But that is what makes this legislation so important here and now. We need to act quickly to give American workers a leg up in this global economy, and create jobs that add value to workers' lives, to their communities, and to the American economy. We can't do that if we only reward capital. Capital can now flow over borders and across the world like never before. But our workers and families remain, and so we must stand with them and give them the tools they need to continue to be productive and competitive in this global economy. Workers from Pennsylvania can compete, but only if we give them a level playing field and the proper tools. This legislation takes one step to do just that, and that is why I support it. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleagues, Senators Specter, Durbin and Obama, a Senate concurrent resolution that will recognize a National Teen Driver Safety Week during the third week of October. This resolution will focus increased public attention and positive action upon the No. 1 cause of death of adolescents in our country--motor vehicle crashes. The fatality rate for drivers ages 16 to 19 is approximately four times that of drivers ages 25 to 69. In 2005, approximately 7,500 of our Nation's teenagers were involved as drivers in fatal car crashes. According to data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 13 of 67 counties in Pennsylvania had six deaths or more in 2005 as a result of traffic accidents involving teens. In Lackawanna County alone, where I reside, there were 13 accidents among drivers ages 19 and under that resulted in death or an incapacitating injury. It is essential that we focus a heightened degree of public attention and awareness upon this tragic--and preventable--crisis. A majority of teen driver crashes are due to driver error and speeding. We must provide more numerous and effective interventions that will help reduce accidents involving teen drivers. We all know that learning to drive is an important rite of social passage and independence for teenagers. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, in partnership with the State Farm Insurance Companies, is conducting ongoing research on teen drivers and recently completed the National Young Driver Survey, questioning thousands of students across the country. The survey was designed to be representative of the 10.6 million public high school students in the United States. Thanks to this new data, we know more about what teens themselves think about driving and how we can more effectively instill safe driving habits. I would like to mention three key findings from this survey: 1. The critical role of parents. As parents, we are often our children's first driving teachers. But our role does not end when our children get their licenses. Parents play a major role in setting and enforcing safe driving behavior, supervising their teen drivers, and ensuring that teens assume responsibility for driving, including financial responsibility. 2. The prevalence of risky distractions. With 80 percent of teen drivers reporting that they own cell phones, these technological advances pose a serious threat to our children's safety while driving. Nearly all--93 percent of--teens in the survey report that they witness distractions such as cell phone calls, loud music, other teens in the car, and their own emotions. Nearly half of all teens say they have witnessed road rage in fellow teen drivers. 3. The prevalence of risky driving behaviors. While 50 percent of teens report seeing other teens drive drunk, nearly three fourths of teens report seeing their peers drive while fatigued. Half of teens report driving 10 miles over the speed limit at least some of the time. Only 65 percent of teens say they consistently use seat belts. This superb research from Children's Hospital will continue to provide us greater insight and strategies for reaching our young people. Our resolution will designate the third week in October, when schools are back in session, as a time for intensive outreach and programming to encourage teens to drive more safely--to minimize risky driving conditions, to manage peer-to-peer interactions around driving, and to learn the skills they need to detect and react to hazards more appropriately. As a member of the Senate, and as a father, I want to do everything in my power to ensure our children are safe on the road. Losing even one child to a preventable death is a tragedy beyond words. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution recognizing a National Teen Driver Safety Week.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I am honored today to join in a bipartisan initiative to introduce legislation based upon the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. I proudly stand with my distinguished colleagues--you, Mr. President, as well as Senators Alexander, Bennett, Pryor, and Gregg--in affirming that this bill will offer a new way forward for the United States in Iraq. The detailed recommendations contained in this bill offer a comprehensive blueprint for renewed diplomacy, restructured economic assistance, and a redeployment of U.S. military forces in Iraq to emphasize training and equipping of Iraqi security forces, conducting limited counterterrorism missions, and protecting our own forces. These recommendations were issued in December 2006, over 5 months ago, but, if anything, their utility is even more apparent today. Our troops should not be refereeing a civil war. And so this Congress and the President must come together--must come together--to form and to forge a new path. The Iraq Study Group's final report is the only comprehensive plan on the table to do that. I approach this bill from a slightly different perspective than some of my cosponsors. In fact, I cosponsored the Reid resolution to change our direction in Iraq, with a goal of completing that redeployment no later than March of 2008. That position has been reflected in the votes I have cast, the questions I have asked as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee at hearings, and the statements I have delivered on the Senate floor. I strongly opposed the President's decision to escalate the number of combat troops in Iraq. For that reason, I voted for the first supplemental bill sent to the President's desk which called for a more restricted U.S. military mission and a phased redeployment of our combat forces from Iraq. A majority of Congress has made clear their desire to change course. Yet unless we achieve a more bipartisan consensus in the Congress that change is necessary, an impasse will continue and our troops will continue to pay the price. It is for that reason I believe the Iraq Study Group's prescribed course of action represents our best hope for a bipartisan consensus in an approach to wind down this combat role in Iraq and successfully transition our mission there. The members of this Iraq Study Group included foreign policy and military experts, as well as other distinguished Americans with impressive experience in public service. There is no challenge greater than determining how the United States can salvage our effort in Iraq in a manner that protects our core national interests, that does right by the Iraqi people, and enables our troops, who have accomplished every mission they have been given over the past 4 years, to come home finally. After months of study and focused deliberations with almost 200 experts, including leading U.S. and Iraqi Government officials and regional scholars, the Iraq Study Group released last December a detailed report with 79 recommendations. This report prescribed a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy that includes sustained engagement with regional neighbors and the international community in a collective effort to bring stability to Iraq. There are a few recommendations in the Iraq Study Group report that I, in fact, disagree with personally. But the comprehensive plan put forth by the group, and particularly the elements emphasized in our bill, represents the best thinking we have on how to resolve the Iraq dilemma in the long run. Time is running out to change course in Iraq. In Pennsylvania, 166 men and women have died. Yesterday we learned 9 Americans were killed in a series of attacks across Iraq. Meanwhile, we continue to search for two American soldiers taken hostage, and at the same time we hear the grim news that the body of a third missing U.S. soldier was identified yesterday. It is time for a change, and I know of no more detailed proposal, no more exhaustively researched set of recommendations and findings and no more comprehensive solution than that offered by the Iraq Study Group. This bill, brought forward by a bipartisan group of Senators, with a diverse set of perspectives and opinions, transforms the recommendations of this group into the declared policy of the U.S. Government. This bill offers our best chance to forge a change of direction at long last in Iraq and to do so in a fashion that, indeed, brings our Nation together. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. 33, introduced earlier today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 23; that on Wednesday, following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business for 60 minutes, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that at the close of morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 1348, the immigration bill.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, if there is no further business, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without further intervening action or debate.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 109, S. 375.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 145, H.R. 2080.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. I thank the Senator from Alabama for his courtesy in allowing me this time. Madam President, I rise today to focus the attention of the Congress, and the attention of the country, upon an issue that is at the heart of why I asked the people of Pennsylvania to allow me to serve in the U.S. Senate. That issue is the well-being of our children and their future. When we greet one another in this country we typically say ``Hello'' and ``How are you?'' But the standard greeting of the East African Masai people is not, ``How are you?'' but, rather, ``How are the children?'' This culture embodies the wisdom that the health of any civilization is always a reflection of the well-being of its most vulnerable citizens--its children. I am distressed and alarmed that in response to the question, ``How are the children,'' the answer today, here in the richest country on Earth, is this: The children, and particularly children from low income and working families, are not well. Our children are not faring well because 6 years of this administration's budget cuts have decimated vital services for children and working families--cuts to childcare assistance, Head Start and other early childhood programs that help children get off to a good start. I am determined to reverse the course this administration has taken in slashing funding for critical children's programs and I know that a great many of my colleagues--on both sides of the aisle--are equally determined. Some of the Presidential candidates have begun talking about the importance of early education and I am heartened by the increased public attention this will garner. If we don't invest money to give children--and particularly the most disadvantaged and at risk children--the services and programs they need in early childhood, they will be at much greater risk of academic failure, drug abuse and even criminal activity when they are older. We can spend upwards of $40,000 on incarceration, thousands of dollars on drug treatment and special education, or we can spend a small fraction of that now on high quality preschool and give children the good start they deserve. We can pay now or we can pay later. The choice is ours. On Friday, May 11, I introduced a bill, the Prepare All Kids Act of 2007.'' The primary goal of my bill is to help States provide high quality prekindergarten programs that will prepare children, and particularly disadvantaged children, for a successful transition to kindergarten and elementary school. My bill reflects the wisdom that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Most States have either begun or are on the way to developing prekindergarten programs. In my own State, the new Pennsylvania Pre-K Counts initiative will provide approximately 11,000 3- and 4-year-olds with voluntary, high-quality prekindergarten that is targeted to reach children most at risk of academic failure. But States need our financial assistance. My Prepare All Kids Act provides this assistance--with conditions and matching commitments from States. Grounded in research and best practices, my bill provides a blend of State flexibility and high quality standards that will serve children well. Here is a quick summary of the main components of my bill and why they are important for children and families: The Prepare All Kids Act will assist States in providing at least 1 year of high quality prekindergarten to children. Studies show high quality prekindergarten programs provide enormous benefits that continue into adulthood. Prekindergarten will be free for low-income children who need it the most. The cost of prekindergarten can be financially draining and even prohibitive for low-income and working families. Prekindergarten programs will utilize a research-based curriculum that supports children's cognitive, social, emotional and physical development and individual learning styles. Experts tell us that at the preschool stage, social and emotional learning can be as important, perhaps even more important, than cognitive learning. This is where early socialization takes place--learning to share, pay attention, work independently, express feelings--all these are critical to successful childhood development. Classrooms will have a maximum of 20 children and children-to-teacher ratios will be no more than 10 to 1. Children need individualized and quality attention to thrive and these requirements provide that. Prekindergarten programs will consist of a 6-hour day. This requirement supports both children and working parents who need high quality programs for their children while they work. Prekindergarten teachers will be required to have a bachelor's degree at the time they are employed, or obtain one within 6 years. Funding under my bill may also be used for professional development purposes by teachers. States will not be able to divert designated funding for other early childhood programs into prekindergarten. We want prekindergarten to build upon and support other early childhood programs like Head Start and child care. We do not want prekindergarten to replace these programs in any way. All these programs are necessary and serve different purposes. Prekindergarten programs will be accountable to a State monitoring plan that will appropriately measure individual program effectiveness. Infant and toddler programs will receive a portion of the funding. These programs typically receive the lowest dollars of all early childhood programs, making it difficult for working parents, many of them single mothers, to find quality child care for the youngest of children. A portion of funding will be used to create extended day and extended year programs. Working families struggle to afford high quality care for their children during after-school hours and the summer months-- this provision will increase the availability of good options. Finally, my bill supports the important role of parents in the education of their young children by encouraging parental involvement in programs and assisting families in getting the supportive services they may need. Children come in families and to truly help children, we have to involve and support their parents. There is one additional component of my bill that I'd like to highlight. My bill ensures that prekindergarten providers will collaborate and coordinate with other early childhood providers so that prekindergarten programs can support and build upon existing programs and services for children. This is a very high priority for me. For example, Head Start has provided effective and comprehensive early education to the most economically disadvantaged children for the past 40 years. And community-based childcare providers are absolutely vital to the well being of our children. In crafting my bill and establishing a new Federal funding source for State prekindergarten programs, I have zealously protected the importance of Federal support and funding for Head Start and childcare programs. All these programs are necessary for a system of early childhood education that truly serves children and families by providing families with multiple options, avoiding duplication of services, and giving children access to the services and support they need to get the best possible start in life. I believe that investing in our children is our moral responsibility. But for anyone who needs additional reasons, decades of research on the life outcomes of children who have attended early education programs prove the wisdom of this investment. A landmark study of the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan began in 1962. Children were randomly assigned to attend the preschool or not, and then tracked over many years to measure the long-term impact of high quality preschool. By age 27, the children excluded from the program were five times more likely to have been chronic law-breakers than those who attended the program. By age 40, those who did not attend the Perry Preschool program were more than twice as likely to be arrested for violent crimes. Those who did not attend the Perry Preschool Program were also more likely to abuse illegal drugs. The research also confirms that high quality prekindergarten programs not only keep children out of trouble, they help children succeed academically. Children in the Perry Preschool Program were 31 percent more likely to graduate from high school than children who did not attend the program. Children who were not enrolled in the Perry Preschool Program were also twice as likely to be placed in special education classes. Another long-term study comparing 989 children in the Chicago Child- Parent Center to 550 similar children who were not in the program showed that children who did not participate in the program were 70 percent more likely to be arrested for a violent crime by age 18. Children who attended the program were 23 percent more likely to graduate from high school. So we know that high-quality early education is invaluable for children. They do better in school, they're less likely to repeat a grade or be held back, less likely to need remedial help or special education. And they are less likely to engage in delinquency, drug use and other dangerous behaviors. But the research shows much more. It turns out that these investments in young children save us quite a bit of money. Specifically, for every dollar invested, high quality early education programs save more than $17 in other costs. That is what I call a smart investment. Many leading economists agree that funding high-quality prekindergarten is among the best investments government can make. An analysis by Arthur Rolnick, senior vice president and director of research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, showed that the return on the investment of the Perry Preschool Program was 16 percent after adjusting for inflation. Seventy-five percent of that return went to the public in the form of decreased special education expenditures, crime costs, and welfare payments. To put this in perspective, the long-term average return on U.S. stocks is 7 percent after adjusting for inflation. Thus, while an initial investment of $1,000 in the stock market is likely to return less than $4,000 in 20 years, the same investment in a program like the Perry Preschool is likely to return more than $19,000 in the same time period. William Gale and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution observe that investing in early childhood education provides government and society ``with estimated rates of return that would make a venture capitalist envious.'' With research as clear and compelling as this, I defy anyone to give me one good reason why we are not investing more--much more--in sound early education for our children. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, though, that despite the evidence, this administration has gone in the opposite direction. Under this administration, cuts to early childhood programs have hurt hundreds of thousands of children and the numbers are only growing. Head Start has been cut 11 percent since 2002. The National Head Start Association calculates that by 2008 our country will have 30,399 fewer children in Head Start than in 2007--that figure includes nearly 1,100 children from Pennsylvania. The President has also called for a freeze in funding for child care assistance--for the sixth year in a row. Currently, only 1 in 7 eligible children receives Federal childcare subsidies. Years of flat funding have already resulted in the loss of child care assistance for 150,000 children. By 2010, 300,000 more children are slated to lose out. In my own State, the current trajectory will mean the loss of $14 million in childcare assistance by 2012. This is, very simply, unacceptable. And it is profoundly wrong. And it is fiscally irresponsible. I began my remarks this morning with the question, ``How are the Children?'' The current answer to that question is not acceptable It is my deep conviction that as elected public servants, we have a sacred responsibility to ensure that all children in this country have the opportunity to grow to responsible adulthood, the opportunity to realize their fullest potential, to live the lives they were born to live. The Protect All Kids Act is a big step in that direction, and I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Everything we do in Congress has some impact--in one way or another and for good or for bad--upon the well being of our children. Our children are our future. With everything we do we must ask ourselves, ``How are the children?'' We cannot rest until the answer to this most fundamental of questions is: The children--all the children--are well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CASEY. I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for up to 10 minutes in morning business and that the Senate recess at 12:40 p.m. today.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, over the last couple of months, we have been debating the policy in Iraq, and over the first 4 months of the 110th Congress, the Senate has spent many days debating this policy. I and many other Senators believe we should move in a new direction and change the policy by transitioning the mission to training Iraqi forces, fighting terrorists, and protecting our troops and civilian personnel in Iraq. As part of this new policy, we should have a phased redeployment strategy to begin the process of winding down the war to get our brave combat forces home. Our troops have accomplished every mission in Iraq. They have done their job. It is well past time that the President, his administration, and this Congress do our job as they have done their job in Iraq. The war has diverted our attention and resources from the broader war against al-Qaida and its allies which continues unabated 5 years following the horrific events of September 11. Despite this administration's exaggerated rhetoric in the months leading up to our invasion, Saddam Hussein's regime did not have any direct ties to al-Qaida, and our decision to topple his regime without international support drained resources from our ongoing efforts in Afghanistan. The Bush administration's inexcusable lack of planning for a postwar environment and the stunning incompetence in managing the occupation gave birth to a large, mostly Sunni-based insurgency in Iraq. This insurgency, aided by a steady flow of foreign fighters, is now giving birth to a new generation of al- Qaida terrorists providing ideological inspiration for extremists around the world. The Presiding Officer knows, as well as so many others, that contrary to the administration's rosy rhetoric in 2002 and 2003, the decision to invade Iraq has served as a major setback in our overall struggle against Islamic extremism and the terrorism that movement inspires. Dr. Bruce Hoffman, one of the world's leading experts on terrorism, who recently briefed me, has declared: The United States' entanglement in Iraq has consumed the attention and resources of our country's military and intelligence communities at precisely the time that Osama bin Laden and other senior al-Qaida commanders were in their most desperate straits and stood to benefit most from this distraction. For that reason, it is essential that we get our Iraq policy on the right path by beginning to redeploy our U.S. combat forces, emphasizing training of Iraqi security forces, protecting our forces, and engaging in targeted counterterrorism missions. The war against al-Qaida and its extremist allies continues on multiple fronts around the world. This is a generational battle, so our Nation must respond accordingly. Vice President Cheney, seeking to validate the administration's counterterror efforts, declared last fall: I don't know how much better you can do than no attacks in the last 5 years. Every American is grateful that the Vice President's statement continues to hold true. We must salute those men and women in our Armed Forces, our intelligence community, and our law enforcement networks, from State and local police forces to the FBI, who have helped protect our Nation against further attacks. To take one example, it was skillful surveillance and old-fashioned gumshoe work on the part of the CIA and FBI agents, closely cooperating with their British counterparts, which allowed us to stop in its tracks a chilling plot to blow up as many as 10 airplanes crossing the Atlantic in August of 2006. Unfortunately, the absence of terrorist attacks in the United States does not signify any reduction in the overall threat posed by al-Qaida and its allies waging battle on behalf of Islamic extremism. The dangers our Nation still face today were brought home by two developments in recent days. The Presiding Officer knows this well because of the State he represents. First, six men were arrested last week for conspiring to launch an attack on Fort Dix in New Jersey and ``kill as many soldiers as possible.'' This homegrown cell of Islamic extremists was broken up when two of the defendants sought to purchase assault weapons from an undercover FBI agent. They had engaged in small arms training at a shooting range in the Pocono Mountains in my home State of Pennsylvania. Second, another development. Late last week the U.S. Embassy in Berlin issued a general threat warning indicating that a terrorist attack against U.S. military or diplomatic facilities in Germany may be in the final stages of planning. This plot may be linked to the upcoming G8 summit to be held in Germany later this summer. We have all seen the press reports indicating fresh evidence that al- Qaida is once again establishing training camps in southwest Asia, only this time in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Although we achieved successes in late 2001 and 2002 in cutting off al-Qaida's hierarchy from its foot soldiers around the world and severing operational links inside the organization, these gains are slowly disappearing. Instead, we see the chain of command within al-Qaida reemerging with fresh evidence of plans of potential terrorist strikes in western Europe and perhaps even our own homeland. Just listen to what the Director of National Intelligence, Mr. McConnell, declared in recent testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee: We also have seen that al-Qaida's core elements are resilient. They continue to plot attacks against our homeland and other targets with the objective of inflicting mass casualties. And they continue to maintain active connections and relationships that radiate outward from their leaders' hideout in Pakistan to affiliates throughout the Middle East, northern Africa, and Europe. The deadly reach of al-Qaida was reaffirmed with April's coordinated explosions in and around the capital of Algeria, killing 24 and wounding more than 200. A group calling itself al-Qaida in Islamic North Africa claimed responsibility for the blasts, a severe blow to a nation that was finally coming out of the ashes of the horrific civil war in the 1990s. Mr. President, we know in order to neutralize this reconstituted and possibly more dangerous version of al-Qaida, the U.S. must embark on a global counterinsurgency campaign which recognizes that military force is an essential, but not sufficient, response to this threat. The U.S. must draw on all elements of our national power--military, political, and economic--in a coordinated campaign that seeks to deny refuge and sanctuary to al-Qaida forces wherever they reside. The Third Way National Security Project recently released an insightful report that calls for a global constriction strategy against al-Qaida--an effort to suffocate the al-Qaida movement and pressure its physical resources, its people, and its vehicles of propaganda--all in a unified effort to shut down al-Qaida's ability to wage war through large-scale acts of terror. We can accomplish this strategy through multiple methods: doubling the size and increasing the skill sets of our Special Forces troops, working with other nations to more effectively crack down on terror financing flows, and, finally, getting serious on public diplomacy so that we can counter and refute the hate- filled messages from extremists at every turn. Recently, former Senator Gary Hart suggested that we should create a fifth military service branch which would unify all Special Forces under one command, an idea worthy of consideration and further study. We also need to send a firm message to Pakistan that the United States cannot tolerate the return of al-Qaida training facilities anywhere in the world. If such camps are on sovereign Pakistani territory, then it is the responsibility of the government in Islamabad to ensure that those camps are shut down. General Musharraf has been a partner of the United States, and his government has played a valued role in some of our most notable counterterrorism successes. But we cannot abide any backsliding when it comes to this issue. Al-Qaida is not only reconstituting its networks and operational capabilities, but it is also making gains in the broader battle of ideas--the clash between modernity and reason and extremism and jihadism. These are two very different worldviews fiercely competing every day for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. America will win the war against extremism when we persuade the citizens of Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other nations of the strength of our ideas and values and offer a path away from militancy and irrational hatred. But we have been going in the wrong direction on this front. We only need to recall the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks when the world united with us in grief and sympathy. Who can forget that grand headline, in France of all places, on September 12, 2001: ``We are all Americans.'' The United States had a historical opportunity to unite the world in a common cause against the forces of terrorism and extremism and destroy the al-Qaida network and the twisted beliefs that serve as its cornerstone. Instead, by pursuing a black-and-white, our- way-or-the-highway approach, this administration helped transform our Nation's greatest asset--the appeal of the American spirit around the world--into a liability. America today evokes feelings of resentment and distrust, negativity and hostility. Instead of building a grand international coalition on behalf of the values that unite us, the White House settled for temporary and weak ``coalitions of the willing'' that have left us far too isolated. Since 2001, the Pew Global Attitudes Project has tracked on a regular basis how America is perceived overseas and global attitudes toward the U.S.- led war on terrorism. Across the board, we have seen a dramatic decline in positive views toward the United States and, even more troubling, the American people. This decline has been especially marked in the Islamic world, where Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida enjoy far stronger favorability ratings than our Nation. In both Morocco and Jordan, both relatively moderate Muslim nations, a 2005 poll found that approximately half of respondents in both nations believe suicide attacks against Americans in Iraq are justifiable. In Indonesia, positive views of the United States plunged from 61 percent to 15 percent in 1 year alone--from 2002 to 2003. Unfortunately, those numbers have barely edged upward in recent years. Something has gone terribly wrong when a vile terrorist organization is in a more positive light than our great Nation. That is, apparently, what some surveys show across the world. I understand that the United States is the biggest guy on the block and a certain level of resentment will always exist. Yet, we cannot succeed in this global struggle against terrorism and extremism if our own ideas and our own image are viewed in such distorted, negative terms. We must recommit ourselves to a global public diplomacy campaign that conveys our Nation as it truly is--a beacon for liberty and hope. Our efforts will succeed when we inspire those currently sitting on the fence in the Muslim world to reject the false ideals that al-Qaida and its brethren promote. In waging an offensive against al-Qaida, our ideas will be as important as the might of our military forces. While we must wage a strong offensive against al-Qaida and its extremist allies, we cannot neglect a strong defense here at home. Combating terrorism requires a strong homeland security effort, to ensure that our Nation can effectively defend and deter against attacks that can kill or injure tens of thousands of Americans in one strike. Unfortunately, homeland security has long been an afterthought for this administration, instead used primarily as a rhetorical weapon against its political opponents. The Department of Homeland Security's ineffectual record and poor performance bear witness to this neglect. It is easy to forget that this administration fiercely opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, instead arguing that a small office in the White House could adequately do the job. The administration long resisted the full implementation of the 9/11 Commission recommendations--a serious oversight that the 110th Congress has sought to rectify, with both the House and the Senate passing comprehensive legislation to help ensure that all of the commission's recommendations are finally put in place. When it came time to replace Tom Ridge as Secretary of Homeland Security, the White House put forward as its first choice Bernard Kerik--a political hack with a checkered past--only to withdraw the nomination days later after a series of embarrassing disclosures on his personal background. The Department of Homeland Security has lacked the necessary budgets, leadership, and political support required from the White House to do its job properly. Although the administration created a brand new department to coordinate homeland security policy, overall funding for homeland security programs barely grew after DHS opened its doors in early 2003. The upper echelons of the Department have constituted a revolving door with industry, as senior political appointees spend only a year or two in their positions before cashing in on their contacts and joining lobbying firms and technology firms with interests before the Department. We saw the culmination of this neglect and indifference in the Department's shameful response to Hurricane Katrina in the fall of 2005. Although I do not sit on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I take a strong interest in these issues, as they are vital to my constituents in Pennsylvania. And so I believe there are three key areas where this Congress can take further action to help ensure that our Nation is better prepared to protect itself against a future attack. First of all, we must ensure that our limited homeland security dollars are spent wisely. Although I respect the general principle that Federal spending must be allocated in a manner fair and proportionate for all 50 States represented in this Chamber, we cannot treat homeland security funding as just another Government program. It is an undeniable fact, one emphasized by the 9/11 Commission, that some States, some cities, and some targets are at significantly greater risk to attack than others. And so we must allocate our homeland security funding on a risk-focused basis. During the Senate's debate on the 9/11 Commission bill, I was proud to stand with the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, and others in fighting for an amendment that would revise our funding formulas to ensure that homeland security dollars flow, first and foremost, to those cities and States with the greatest at-risk targets. Although this effort failed, I was pleased to see that we have made progress since the last Congress and encourage the House-Senate conference to ensure that risk-based funding provisions be included in the final bill. A second area of strong concern to me is the prospect of terrorists transforming our chemical plants and hazardous material rail shipments into lethal chemical weapons. A Congressional Research Service report indicates that there are at least 16 chemical plants in Pennsylvania where a release of toxic chemicals could cause over 100,000 deaths, and two plants where such a release could result in over a million deaths. This threat has been brought home in recent weeks as we see insurgents in Iraq engineering large explosions of chlorine tankers to spread noxious fumes in populated areas. These attacks are growing in sophistication and lethality and I worry that they may provide a blueprint for similar attacks in the United States. Therefore, I am encouraged that the Department of Homeland Security released its final regulations on chemical plant security earlier this month. These regulations are a good start, but we need to do much more. In particular, we need to ensure that the Department of Homeland Security's Chemical Security Office receives far more than the paltry $10 million it was appropriated for the current fiscal year. It is also essential to permit those state and local governments which wish to adopt even more stringent protective measures to do so. The regulations issued by the Department are somewhat ambiguous on this point, and so both Houses of Congress have endorsed language that preserves the right of State and local governments to ``preempt'' Federal regulations so long as they are not in direct contradiction. This language would permit the Department of Homeland Security to establish a minimum floor for chemical security regulations, but, yielding to the best principles of federalism, allow individual State and local governments to go beyond those minimum regulations where appropriate. Finally, it is incumbent that our Nation takes steps to once and for all ensure that our first responders have reliable access to secure interoperable communications. After 343 firefighters and paramedics gave their lives on 9/11, and countless victims died during Hurricane Katrina, because emergency personnel were unable to communicate with each other, it is unacceptable that we have still failed to establish a nationwide interoperable communications system that will allow local, State, and Federal first responders to communicate with each other in a seamless and uniform fashion. For this reason, I am proud to join my distinguished colleague from Arizona in cosponsoring S. 744, the SAVE LIVES Act, a bill ensuring that an additional 30 MHz in the 700 MHz spectrum band be dedicated to public safety. The SAVE LIVES Act would require the Federal Communications Commission to auction 30 MHz of the spectrum, which is otherwise scheduled to be made available in January 2008 for general commercial purposes, under a conditional license requiring any winning bidder to meet detailed requirements to operate a national, interoperable public safety broadband network. A commercial provider can use this broadband spectrum for commercial purposes, but must make available the spectrum for public safety purposes whenever it is needed. I am proud to be the first cosponsor on this important legislation. I strongly urge the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee to take up this bill immediately, because we don't have time to lose. Pursuant to a previous congressional mandate, the FCC must auction spectrum in the 700 MHz band by January 28, 2008. Unless this bill passes in some form beforehand, all of that spectrum, with a small exception, will be auctioned off to commercial providers, with no requirement that any of it be made available to first responders for public safety purposes. Secure, interoperable communications is an issue of particular interest to my constituents in the city of Philadelphia. Currently, first responders are unable to use their radios in the tunnels of the city's subway and commuter rail system, SEPTA. The city has applied for DHS grants in past years to wire the tunnels to facilitate communications, but those applications have been rejected. I intend to work with the city and other members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation to ensure that the fifth largest city in the Nation is prepared for any potential emergency in its transit system. There are a number of other strong policy proposals that I urge this Congress to consider to further strengthen our Nation's homeland security. I do not have the time today to discuss them in further detail, but at a minimum, we should take a serious look at the following areas: Ensuring that we inspect the air cargo transported by passenger airlines to prevent terrorists from planting a bomb in a plane's underbelly; strengthening our border security with better technology and additional Customs and Border Patrol agents; working with the private sector to develop real incentives for both large corporations and small businesses to adopt commensense solutions that mitigate the risks of an attack and thus make them less attractive targets to terrorists; undertaking a serious and comprehensive approach to locking up sources of nuclear missile material around the world to prevent our worst nightmare--an improvised nuclear bomb destroying an American city. All of us remember where we were and what we were doing on September 11, 2001. The memories of that terrible day will remain with all of us so long as we are alive. Our Nation has been blessed that we he not had to endure another attack during the intervening 5 years, but we recognize that our friends in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East have suffered ghastly attacks that have taken the lives of innocent civilians and spread terror. The war in Iraq is at the center of our national discussion today, but we cannot allow it to distract us from the objectives the America people set out to achieve in the fall of 2001: destroying al-Qaida and denying legitimacy to the ideas of jihadist extremism. It is time to refocus our attention and resources. Al-Qaida may not have mounted another attack against our citizens, but they have tried and are once again on the march. We must rededicate ourselves to a comprehensive strategy that seeks to constrict Al-Qaida's bases of support and undercuts their popular legitimacy in the Muslim world. On the home front, we must ensure that we are adequately prepared to deter and defend against likely attacks that seek to exploit our open society and sow panic and economic damage. If America truly is engaged in a generational battle against the forces of extremism, our Nation must adopt a serious and comprehensive approach to counterterrorism, both overseas and at home. We owe the victims of 9/11 and their families no less--indeed, we owe the American people no less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my Prepare All Kids Act of 2007, a bill that represents one of my highest priorities, high quality prekindergarten education for all children, and particularly those from low income families for whom the cost of prekindergarten may be prohibitive. Investing in high quality early childhood development programs should be a national priority for our country. I look forward to speaking at length on the floor early next week about what my bill will accomplish for children and working families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my Prepare All Kids Act of 2007, a bill that represents one of my highest priorities, high quality prekindergarten education for all children, and particularly those from low income families for whom the cost of prekindergarten may be prohibitive. Investing in high quality early childhood development programs should be a national priority for our country. I look forward to speaking at length on the floor early next week about what my bill will accomplish for children and working families. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I stand today in support of an amendment to S. 1082 offered by Senator Dorgan and several of our colleagues. This amendment is identical to a bill sponsored by the Senator from North Dakota, a bill I am proud to cosponsor. We have a serious problem today with drug prices all across our land. The American people have asked us to do something constructive about this crisis. Why is it Americans pay the world's highest prices for prescription drugs? This is simply not fair, and I have to believe we can do better in America. While the issues contributing to prescription drug prices are many and complex, this amendment, the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, offers a genuine and workable piece of the solution. It is no secret to anyone that Americans already import many prescription drugs, and I have heard from constituents in my home State of Pennsylvania about buying drugs outside of this country. A recent study shows that would cost from 35 to 55 percent less than constituents of mine are paying. They can pay a much lower price if they are able to get prescriptions from another country. Seniors who are living on limited incomes are especially vulnerable and need to cut costs wherever they can. We all know the high cost of health care across all of our States is prohibitive for so many vulnerable citizens--children, working families, and older citizens. The reality is when the monthly budget has been spent on necessities such as food or childcare, doctors' visits, housing, transportation--when all those costs are incurred, many families do not have money left over for medicine. These individuals may have no choice but to forgo needed medicine and hope for the best. Another recent study found 43 percent of uninsured Americans ages 19 to 64, and even 18 percent of insured adults, did not fill a prescription because of cost. This is in the richest country in the world. We can do a lot better than that, and we must do better than that. I support this legislation because it gives us the opportunity to help families in America, and to do so safely. There are a number of safety features that are intended to guarantee that only safe and effective--let me say that again, only safe and effective--FDA-approved drugs are imported across our borders. These safety features are comprehensive. For purposes of time, I want to highlight a few. First, this act allows only the importation of FDA-approved medicines with a chain of custody, to ensure that drugs are handled only by authorized persons. In most cases, the medicines that are imported under this act are identical to the medications sold in the United States--literally the same medications made by the same manufacturers. Exporters would be required to maintain detailed records and a sample of each lot sent to the U.S., so that the FDA can conduct testing on any lot at any time. The FDA would have broad authorities, including the power to cease importation of a drug or to suspend a registered exporter without notice. The FDA also has the authority to inspect all facilities in the chain of custody of a drug. The bottom line is this bill gives the FDA broad authority and the resources to ensure that imported drugs are in fact safe. It is unacceptable that working parents have to make a choice between medicine they cannot afford for their child and making the rent payment on time. It is unacceptable that older citizens have to choose between paying for needed medication and paying for food. This Chamber can do something about this challenge, can do something about this Hobson's choice so many families face every day in America. The Dorgan amendment provides an effective regulatory framework to ensure that imported drugs are safe for our families. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment which will provide an invaluable piece of the solution to making FDA-approved prescription drugs affordable for everyone.

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Dorgan be recognized to speak.

Mr. CASEY

Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I stand today in strong support of H.R. 1591, the congressional supplemental bill. In casting our votes on this important measure, all of us must ask a fundamental question: Do we support a change in course in Iraq or do we want more of the same? This supplemental bill delivers over $100 billion in necessary funding, an increase of $4 billion over the President's request for our military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, fully meeting the President's request. More important, the bill establishes a change in course for our policy in Iraq by transitioning the mission of American troops away from involvement in a growing civil war to a more targeted mission, one focused on counterterrorism, training and equipping Iraqi forces, and force protection for American troops. The supplemental bill that was voted on today offers a path away from the current quagmire in Iraq, a state of bloodshed and chaos which is straining the U.S. Army, diverting our attention from a resurgent al- Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and finally sacrificing too many of our finest men and women. We must never forget the enormous personal sacrifices our troops are asked to make every day. As of today, 162 Pennsylvanians and more than 3,300 Americans as a whole have given their lives in Iraq, with tens of thousands more suffering lifelong injuries, including amputations, severe burns, and traumatic brain injuries. On Monday, nine members of the 82nd Airborne Division gave their lives when a suicide bomber infiltrated their outpost in Diyala Province, the deadliest single attack on U.S. forces in Iraq since December 2005. We pray today for our fallen heroes--today and always--but we also pray for ourselves that we may be worthy of their valor. Our troops have done all they can. They have deposed Saddam, and they fought insurgents and foreign terrorists. They spent the last 4 years partnering with their Iraqi counterparts in a courageous effort to establish the foundation for democracy and a free society. They have been asked to mediate disputes and protect innocent civilians as targets in a crossfire of a civil war. So our troops have done their part. Now it is time for the Congress and the White House to do their part. As retired military generals, experienced diplomats, and scholars with intimate knowledge of Iraq have declared and as a bipartisan Iraq Study Group concluded just last winter, any success in Iraq requires a political and diplomatic solution and cannot be achieved through military might alone. Just ask General Petraeus, who, upon assuming his new command in March, declared: There is no military solution to a problem like that in Iraq, to the insurgency of Iraq . . . A political resolution of various differences . . . will determine, in the long run, the success of that effort. GEN Barry McCaffrey recently returned from his latest trip to Iraq. One of our most widely respected former military officers, General McCaffrey fought in Vietnam with distinction, commanded a division in the gulf war in 1991, and led U.S. operations in Latin America. He submitted a formal report on his trip, which is very sober reading. One line stands out for me, and I quote from General McCaffrey's report: No Iraqi Government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter, foreign nongovernmental organization, nor contractor can walk the streets of Baghdad, nor Mosul, nor Kirkuk, nor Basra, nor Tikrit, nor Najaf, nor Ramadi, without heavily armed protection. This supplemental bill provides the Congress and the White House a chance to do their part to ensure success in our mission in Iraq. It brings to an end the ``stay the course'' mentality that defined our approach for the past 4 years in at least three ways. First, the supplemental revises our mission in Iraq away from policing a civil war toward training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counterterror operations. Second, it initiates a phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1 of this year, with a goal of removing all combat troops by April 1 of next year. These steps were called for in the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and represent the will of the American people. I am pleased that the Congress is finally following suit. Third, the supplemental at least holds the Iraqi Government accountable by setting measurable and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi Government for ending the sectarian conflict, political reconciliation, and improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis. If the Iraqi Government refuses to meet these benchmarks, they will put at risk future U.S. assistance and the continued presence of U.S. troops. We have repeatedly seen past benchmarks established by the Bush administration and the Iraqi Government come and go without progress and without consequence. Just this week, a revealing article in USA Today highlighted the growing lack of confidence among Iraqi Parliamentarians in the al-Maliki government, and one legislator was quoted as saying: This government hasn't delivered and is not capable of doing the job. This bill, once and for all, establishes a series of accountable benchmarks. Finally, the supplemental recognizes the toll this war has taken on our uniformed military, especially the Army and Marine Corps. It establishes a set of troop-readiness standards that establish minimum levels between deployments for our troops and limits the duration of those deployments. The legislation includes a Presidential waiver authority, but it would require the President to certify that the continued strain on our military forces is in our national interest. These provisions will force the President to think long and hard about the impact of the Iraq war on the readiness of our military to handle other pressing challenges, including the need to fight and kill al-Qaida terrorists wherever we find them. The congressional debate that has helped produce this supplemental bill has been attacked by the President and his supporters. However, our Secretary of Defense last week described our debate as helpful in ``communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.'' Two of my distinguished colleagues, on a recent visit to Baghdad, explicitly informed Iraqi leaders that growing congressional pressure on the need for a phased redeployment signified that it was time for the Iraqi Government to get serious and start taking the hard steps needed for political reconciliation, including a fair distribution of oil revenues. Without the steps this Congress has taken, without the pressure it has applied, the Maliki regime would continue to be receiving an open-ended blank check from the White House, with our soldiers paying the ultimate price. The President has regrettably chosen to distort and malign our intentions in sending him the bill that is before us today. I wish to take a few minutes to briefly address those charges and demonstrate why it is the President--the President--and not the Congress who has cynically held hostage the funding and well-being of our troops. First, the President has repeatedly charged that our military forces needed the supplemental funding immediately and any delay to pass the supplemental in his exact specifications would harm their readiness. A number of my colleagues already cited authoritative research from the Congressional Research Service that demonstrates that the needed funding is available to the U.S. Army from mid to late July--let me say that again, mid to late July--without jeopardizing the war effort. However, there is a much larger cynicism at play here. There would be no need for a supplemental bill at all if this President had submitted an honest, regular budget request for this fiscal year. Four years into the war, this administration should be able to tell the American people how much the war in Iraq cost. Yet the administration has refused to incorporate wartime costs into his regular budget request, instead seeking to finance our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through a series of supplemental bills. Of course, the President doesn't want to do that because regular appropriations requests are subject to greater public and congressional scrutiny. Financing the war through supplemental bills also allows the President to better hide the impact of the war on our Federal budget. It is not surprising that a President who has run up the largest deficits in modern history would want to hide that fact. Doing so on the backs of our troops is outrageous. So the President is plain wrong when he attacks the Congress on supplemental funding for our troops in Iraq. The reality is that we have exceeded the President's request and on a timetable which is quicker than that of the previous Congress controlled by the President's party. If the President chooses to veto this bill, it is he--it is he--who is prolonging this process and denying necessary funds to our young men and women in uniform. If the President had been honest with the Congress and the American people on the true cost of this war from the very beginning, we would not have needed this supplemental bill. The second claim the President has made over and over again in recent weeks is that this supplemental bill is larded up with porkbarrel spending that is unrelated to our military operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, once again, the President is distorting both his own actions and those of Congress for crude political gain. We should not forget that the President's original request for supplemental funding also included funds not related to the war in Afghanistan and in Iraq. The President's request included money for debt relief in Kosovo, cultural exchanges, and assistance to refugees in Burundi. The President keeps calling for a clean bill, yet his own request to the Congress included extra items with no connection to Iraq or Afghanistan. In light of the President's request, the Congress, acting as an independent and equal branch of Government, engaged in its own deliberations and determined other emergency priorities that required funding through this supplemental bill. This President seems to think that the Congress exists merely to follow his orders and that it should not exercise any independent judgment. This may have been the case with our predecessors but not with this Congress and not with this Senator. We were elected by the people of our States, and we report to them, not the President and not the Vice President. So the Congress acted to ensure additional funding for a number of key priorities. The President has broadly tarred these projects as ``egregious porkbarrel.'' Does the President believe that label applies to the $1.2 billion in funds for accelerated production of mine-resistent vehicles so our soldiers have a better chance of surviving IED attacks? Does he believe that label applies to $2.1 billion to better provide health care for our veterans? Does he believe that $650 million to help with the children's health insurance shortfall in 14 States is frivolous spending? I could also talk about the funding for victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and our farmers and on and on. This supplemental bill, agreed upon by the House and the Senate, is a responsible effort that guarantees the funds our troops need, provides funding for other critical emergency priorities, and sets a badly needed change in course in Iraq. In conclusion, our policy in Iraq is not working, and it must change if we are to salvage our mission and seek to leave behind a functioning government in Baghdad that can defend its national borders and contain internal violence. It is time to recognize the reality of Iraq as it is today, get our mission right, and allow our troops to begin coming home with the honor they deserve. Mr. President, I yield the floor.